9/17/2008

“I offer no apologies or regrets for persistence” — Andrew Sullivan (link is not work-safe).

I don’t know if Google-bombing works any more. But it would be interesting if, when people search for Andrew Sullivan (link is not work-safe), the first link to pop up would be this link about Andrew Sullivan (link is not work-safe).

The quote comes from this post. Bonding with me in determination to consistently remind readers about this is Ace, and God bless him for it.

The relevance and authenticity of the link is discussed at this link. We’re talking hypocrisy on several levels.

You want self-righteousness, Andrew Sullivan (link is not work-safe)? I got your self-righteousness.

I once said: “If he is going to make constant disparaging references to the people surrounding Sarah Palin, I am going to keep linking the personal ad where he hypocritically seeks out men for promiscuous sex. I’ll do my best to make sure nobody ever forgets it.”

UPDATE: A reader writes to make two points: 1) my anger in this post is palpable, in contrast to my normally calm demeanor, and 2) he worries that linking to Sullivan’s ads soliciting sex from strangers “has the effect of subtly reinforcing, to your largely anti-gay audience, that gay people are immoral/disgusting/hypocrites/etc.”

I appreciate the e-mail. Let me take the second point first, for the benefit of any new readers who don’t know my position on homosexuality or gay marriage. I support gay marriage. When propositions have come up in California to restrict marriage to heterosexuals, I have voted no — and I will again this fall. I am more liberal on this issue than Barack Obama.

Also, I would be linking to Sullivan’s ad even if he had written to denounce promiscuous heterosexual sex, and had placed an ad seeking promiscuous heterosexual sex. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with his being an absolutely hypocritical cretin on privacy. (I would like to say, however, that when I post this link (and I have before) I tend to see a certain set of anti-homosexual commenters pop up in the comments. In fact, this happens to some degree whenever I discuss Sullivan. I think most of you know I disapprove of these comments, but it never hurts to say it again.)

As to my anger being palpable, you bet. When Andrew Sullivan posted ads soliciting risky unprotected sex on the Internet, and someone blew the whistle on his hypocrisy, he bleated about privacy. But now, there is no outrage visited on Sarah Palin that is too private or personal that he won’t splash it on his web site.

Someone hacks Sarah Palin’s e-mail? Tell the world! Link approvingly to a site that publishes the results!

Some moron publishes a stupid rumor saying Sarah Palin is the grandmother of her own son? Tell the world! Amplify it and give it mainstream credibility!

Let’s talk about whether she should have had an amnio. Let’s talk about her sister’s sex life. Let’s link to court sites that might discuss a possible affair. He has discussed all these things and more, each time with the lame excuse: I’m just airing it! I’m doing the vetting McCain didn’t do!

Well, I’m doing the vetting the Atlantic didn’t do. I think someone ought to tell the world just exactly what kind of a lowlife hypocritical cretin this man is.

People need to know 1) what an utter fucking hypocrite he is and 2) how unbelievable his current nose-up-the-ass curiosity about Palin contrasts with his ever-so-respectable call for privacy when the issue was his “power glutes” “milking loads” from largely anonymous HIV+ partners — all in direct contrast to his fucking hypocritical pontificating against promiscuous homosexual sex.

You want to talk about Levi Johnston’s MySpace page, Andrew Sullivan? You want to talk about Sarah Palin’s decision to have an amnio?

OK. Great. Let’s contrast this:

This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the “libidinal pathology” of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to “a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation.” He has hectored gay men for their obsession with “manic muscle factories,” and written at length about the need for “responsibility” in the age of AIDS.

With this:

I take loads in my ass.
I take loads in my mouth.
I give loads in asses.
I give loads in mouths.

. . . .

Looking for:

One-on-One’s
3-Ways
Groups/Parties/Orgies
Gang Bangs

It’s all about the hypocrisy, Andrew.

You keep pushing the crap on Palin, and Ace and I will keep pushing this.

So Ace has buried the post in 2005. That’s fine. I put up the RAWMUSLGLUTES link on 9-6 and didn’t take it down, and I’m leaving this one up. I never thought I’d see the day that I’d be less squeamish than Ace, but there you have it.

Do they take milky loads in their mouth from strangers? You know, like Andrew Sullivan said he would, on a public web page, in direct contravention of his stated principles of opposing promiscuous sex?

We should be able to see the results from current Sullivan HIV/Aids testing. Enquiring minds need to know. It would better help us judge his character and ability to blog. Seriously, there is something demented about the dude. We need to know how many partners he’s had. There should be no privacy for anyone and no double standards. It is understood that some people get a huge thrill having sex with the possibility one might get infected. I don’t know current statistics, but those righteous SF fruits had oodles of partners. Had heard numbers like 70 a year and 1200 lifetime. One prime fellator bragged he wanted to collect a quart of sperm in his mouth nightly. How does Sully feel about that?

Actually the world would be better off without Andrew Sullivan and his obssession with the Palins’ vaginas. And the Atlantic just keeps on enabling his bad behavior.

Actually the world would be better off without Andrew Sullivan and his obssession with the Palins’ vaginas.

Precisely. While this type of hardball (no pun intended) is certainly initially offputting, I just can’t come up with a reason he doesn’t deserve it. In fact, I want to see all his medical records, including all his therapists’ records if any, because he’s a public figure and his publicly expressed obsessions with the Palins’ vaginas give evidence of either mental illness or vicious lying while publicly posting in a major venue. And he OWES it to everyone to disprove the allegation that he’s a vicious liar. We’re “just asking questions,” right? We’d be remiss if we didn’t follow up while liveblogging, right?

Andrew Sullivan is a sick individual IMO. And he needs to prove to the world that he is not.

So. How ’bout your medical records, like the ones you were so ASSIDUOUSLY DEMANDING of Sarah Palin about Trig, Mr. Sullivan? Let’s have ’em.

9. the same applies to some others who are making up bs stories about Palin. What is skanky ho from Airhead America Rhandi Rhodes’ sexual and medical history? How many teen boys has SHE been balling?

The media should be more upfront about their desire to install Obama as POTUS. At least Chrissie I squat to pee Matthews admits that he has manlove for Baracky as witnessed by the boner he gets fantasizing about mulatto man-meat.

Can’t libs come up with anything better to run for prez than awful offal such as algore, lurch and the neophyte anointed one?

I don’t know a single person who reads the Atlantic. I don’t know a single man who is interested in the kind of subject matter that Sullivan blogs about on an almost daily basis (I do know two women who do). In other words, this is one more left wing spittoon overflowing with putrescent bile that almost nobody is interested in. Why waste time mentioning him. I stopped reading him three years ago when I figured out all by myself that gay marriage was his litmus test. To me he is just another ordinary Oxford-Cambridge fruit from an over the hill Europe.

I honestly wonder if something’s really wrong with his meds. Seriously, he probably has to take like a hundred pills a day. And I do remember that years ago he posted that his doctors had just tweaked his cocktail and it was affecting his mood.

I’m not trying to defend him, as his current behavior is abhorrent, no matter the cause. It’s just that I’ve read him for many years and have *never* seen anything remotely resembling this complete and utter meltdown.

And speaking of “meltdown,” did anyone notice a nice bit of projection in one of his posts from a week or so ago? He said that Sarah Palin was in “complete meltdown” or the like. Oddly enough, that phrase was scrubbed when I went back to look for it later. Could that edit be the *beginnings* of self-awareness on his part?

Atlantic’s already apologized to the McCain campaign for it’s latest cover shoot. I wonder if apologizing for their demented obsessed vagina sniffing gay blogger is next on the agenda. I’d like to hear that one explained.

Well, we can’t control what the guy writes.

But you saw the completely unsourced garge he was putting out.

Yes, but shouldn’t he have the right to ask questions?

Are you running supermarket tabloid or a respectable publication? Your decision.

I had never head of Andrew Sullivan before I started lurking here. It boggles the mind to think the likes of Sullivan can feel no remorse. And if he does feel it, how can he not express it?

Comment by MilkyLoads — 9/18/2008 @ 6:35 am

It’s pretty simple. Vanity and Pride.

The same vices that make you dig in your heels when it’s been made clear you’ve been an idiot (that’s where the “vicious liar” part kicks in) and, since we’re on the subject, the same vices that make you think that your own personal opinions and/or desires, of whatever stripe, trump the 2000-year-old teachings of the Church of which you claim to be a member.

The seven deadly sins (pride, wrath, gluttony, sloth, envy, greed and lust) used to be called the seven “capital” sins in Catholic teaching because all other wrongdoing springs from them. In Mr. Sullivan’s case re: Gov. Palin, in my opinion at lease two of these sins are leading to others, like gossip and libel, repeatedly. That the subject matter of the gossip and libel is making him look obsessively deranged is, given his vanity, perhaps the only part of this that would bother him.

Sullivan and his fellow inverts push the gay political agenda, they think it’s just fine and dandy for homosexual men to become Boy Scout leaders and take little boys out into the woods on overnight camping trips.

Of course, good and decent gay men can become wonderful Scoutmasters, but gay rights is not the issue. protecting children from sexual abuse is the point. Gays say they shouldn’t be excluded for their sexual orientation, but the rights of gay men do not supercede the rights of children to be protected from harm.

Gays insist that not all homosexual men are perverts, which is true. But also true is that perverts seek opportunities to mingle with potential victims.

Those who work to overcome the social rejection of gays, and their political agenda, would find a more receptive audience among the general public if they honestly faced the legitimate concerns parents have concerning criminal misbehavior of serial sexual predators, especially predators who target young children.

The Gay Community is uniquely positioned to take the lead in identifying serial sexual predators, and they could make a positive contribution to society, instead of making flaming hyprocrits out of themselves.

Let me take the second point first, for the benefit of any new readers who don’t know my position on homosexuality or gay marriage. I support gay marriage.

I thank you for that.

And, as a gay commenter, I would add: I have not felt _any_ hostility from your other commenters as a result of my sexuality. (Of course, I also haven’t been making an issue of it; but I would notice even hostility not directed at me, in much the same way that I notice hostility at liberals not directed at me).

While I would not be surprised to find that many in your audience are anti-gay, it does not seem to be an issue of primary importance to the active members, and this site has always seemed civil, even when discussing contentious topics such as gay marriage. You, and your commenters, are to be commended for that.

What Sullivan doesn’t seem to understand, and might even be related to his recent deterioration, is that there are different subgroups of the HIV virus that have not been categorized. There are a number of reports of HIV + people who are in remission on the med cocktail that is now available (and wasn’t when several of my gay friends died in the late 80s) who become infected with another strain of HIV and rapidly deteriorate. He is playing Russian roulette with his behavior.

…“has the effect of subtly reinforcing, to your largely anti-gay audience, that gay people are immoral/disgusting/hypocrites/etc.”

These kinds of smears come from the same place that Baracky’s constant insinuation of Republican racism come from. Anyone that disagrees with Excitable Andy is a homophobe. Disagree with Teh One – RACIST ! Just ask Baracky. Or that Jack on CNN. Or the Governor of KS. Racists, you all are. Did you know Baracky Obama is black?

It’s completely inappropriate to reprint those. I mean … almost all guys in their late teens who have a MySpace page have dumb comments on them. This is absolutely normal.
Besides which, dumb comments by Gov Palin’s soon-to-be son-in-law don’t reflect on her; her daughter’s taste in men has nothing to do with the Governor’s qualification for higher office.
Furthermore, it’s not like Mr. Johnston was expecting to be in the limelight and had learned to self-censor the way politicians and other public figures do. He has a right to a private life … and his MySpace page, while public, is covered by the penumbras of that.

Someone hacks Sarah Palin’s e-mail?

Irritating, illegal and unethical … but if the hacked email were to contain information indicating criminal corruption, for example, or demonstrating that Gov. Palin were lying, then it would be fair game to publish it. Otherwise, if it’s just run-of-the-mill embarassing stuff, then there’s no excuse (and I don’t know what the stuff is, so I have no idea in this case if it was appropriate or not).

Some moron publishes a stupid rumor saying Sarah Palin is the grandmother of her own son?

There are rumors about everything. Absent evidence, they should remain that way.

Let’s talk about whether she should have had an amnio

None of my business either way.

Let’s talk about her sister’s sex life.

Completely inappropriate. Her sister’s life is her own, and not relevant to my judgement of Gov. Palin.

Let’s link to court sites that might discuss a possible affair.

Arguably appropriate, if the affair in question is Gov. Palin’s; while at the end of the day I think that’s an issue which should be left between Gov. and Mr. Palin, I also know that affairs by politicians are considered to be damning offenses by many, and as a result, they are considered to be legitimate fodder for political dialogue.

…but if the hacked email were to contain information indicating criminal corruption, for example, or demonstrating that Gov. Palin were lying, then it would be fair game to publish it.

I actually disagree. Privacy is privacy. If the “ends justify the means,” then cybertermites will continue to dig, illegally, in hopes of finding “justifiable” things…but still publish private information.

I’ll be interested in how the Left justifies this. The same people who seem so concerned about wiretapping potential terrorists seem to find this invasion of privacy amusing.

As a senior citizen, let me say that I am not against gay people. Gay people have been and are more hateful about themselves than anyone else could be. I am however, against the type of individual who spends his time doing in a blog with words, what he probably spends tons of time in bathrooms or bathhouses all over dozens of times a day. It seems to me that evolution decided to give Andy’s type an insatiable appetite for gross, ugly and mean behavior which spills over onto anyone who comes across him in any way. I say, do as we did when I was young, banish him from our society on the Net for life. Ignore him 100%!

I made comments here about what’s important to Andrew Sullivan that can be construed as anti-gay. I did not intend them that way. I would say, and have said, just as nasty things about a pussy-hound such as Clinton or Edwards.

I consider gay men to be men. I disapprove of irresponsible behavior, whether sexual or, in Sullivan’s case, thoughtlessly libelous.

Good post, Patterico. I surfed some of the posts at the Daily Dish the other day and was gobsmacked at his level of Palin obsession. He has at least 5 posts on the Palin’s “family voting” on her big political decision. I could see how this normal family dynamic of consensus-building would elude a hypocritical cruiser of unsafe gay sex, but it reads kinda funny for the rest of us.

Under “turn-ons,” Sullivan says “black guys.” Isn’t it obvious that Sullivan has a major-league crush on Barack Obama and that this is affecting his judgment? He has to try to destroy Sarah Palin, because she might get in the way of his fantasy lover’s quest for the presidency.

I had read that Google bombong doesn’t work as well as it once did. Hopefully someone with some serious knowldge of SEO can explain to the conservative blogs what they can do to get Sullivan’s perversion associated and connected to him on Google and Yahoo searches.

Not sure if I count as active commenter; I’m mostly in lurk mode and came out really only for stuff that interests me (such as the recent statistics mega-discussion). Chalk me up for anti-homosexuality, though, full disclosure. Not anti-gay, per se, I guess, but probably close enough for government work.

Having said that…

aphrael says,

And, as a gay commenter, I would add: I have not felt _any_ hostility from your other commenters as a result of my sexuality.

But aphrael;
1. You bear the name of my favourite fictional goddess. I could never be hostile to Aphrael…
2. Civility where civility is due. You are rational, calm, collected and your posts are invariably logically set out. I may disagree with the content, but never with the tone.

—
Oh, Patterico, you wanna know why Ace buried it? It’s not precisely because of his bashing Andi, it’s because of the comments. To wit, a commenter made some unwelcome remarks about the age of Obama’s children, and their… umm… looks, and while about half (maybe more) of the Morons(tm) fell on top of that commenter like a ton of bricks, some others of the Morons(tm) defended him. Including Ace, who (at that time) declared that if Obama’s minions made Sarah Palin’s children ‘fair game’, then by extension Mr BHOmbastic’s (my own term) own children were ‘fair game’ also.

Eh, you had to read it to get the full flavour of why Ace figured it got somewhat beyond the bounds.

Ace has, of course, since recovered from his medication’s side effects, cooled down and thought it should not be so blatantly out there. He’s got a post that links to the two buried posts, so it’s not that he’s hiding them, just, I dunno, making them less obviously ugly. And messing up his front page.

Maybe you’d like to do a Prisoner’s Dilemma post one of these days, and ask the more far-out lefites whether they really, really wanna go there. Or conversely, whether we want to go there.

If you want to send the Sullivans of the world a message, vote yes on Prop 8.

People want to know what is at stake if traditional marriage is overturned and replaced with a new meaning of marriage, which will happen if Prop 8 isn’t passed.

They are under an illusion if they think this is about gay couples. It isn’t.

The abolition of traditional marriage means the denigration of traditional family. The denigration of traditional family means more broken families, fewer whole families and the breakup of the traditional family as society devalues such structures. This in turn hurts children and means a less civilized grounding of the next generation and demographic decline as fewer people care to raise children at all. Demographic decline and poorly raised children will eventually lead to the slide and collapse of our civilization, and a preview can be found in some parts of Europe.

Don’t vote for Prop 8 and save traditional marriage unless you care about American civilization. That’s all that is at stake, nothing more.

I’ll be interested in how the Left justifies this. The same people who seem so concerned about wiretapping potential terrorists seem to find this invasion of privacy amusing.

Eric Blair you are right! I want to see who on the Left defends this execrable and illegal behavior of hacking into and releasing personal emails. They will be on record as wanting to afford more consideration and rights to Al Qaeda terrorists than to the privacy rights of a U.S. Governor.

I personally think digging up Sullivan’s personal ad is a mistake. This is the stuff Musto and the left dredged up and used against Sullivan when he was supposedly “conservative” so reusing this stuff seems…well dirty.

Sullivan is a hypocrite and liar. But I am not sure I would have gone here. I think it just gives him the chance to claim he is the victim and that is just wrong.

And BTW, I completely agree with your sentiments about homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. I would vote for and support gay marriage–it is certainly no threat to traditional marriage. I support civil unions too if that is a compromise that works for you. I just think it should be passed by legislative and voter action, not imposed by judges. I support Sullivan’s stance on banning torture (although I do not support his desire to conduct war crimes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld).

It is too bad that Sullivan is so blinded with sheer hatred of Palin and her family (really more fear that Obama could lose) that he is willing to squander his reputation on this. I mean Trig Trutherism.

Moreover, Sully referred to him as Barack Hussein Obama. Aside from the thinly-veiled double-entendres, the fact that Sully claims that what Barack Hussein Obama has to offer “first and foremost” is his face is an assertion that his race and appeal to Muslims is key. OTOH, if an opponent were to mention either one of those things…

Sully likes black guys, so does Bill Ayres, and so does Obama’s chidhood friend, “Frank.” Another black preacher on TV accused Reverend Wright of being homosexual, and also said so was the now dead Chior Director in Wright’s church, he was a long time pal of Obama.

To JD:
Hey, I appreciate your efforts, but must inform you that Lord Rove, head of Guild of Undead Males (and females), has requested 75% MORE satire of leftist behavior and thought by the end of this quarter. If the new goal is not met, he will restrict the supply of fresh brains to all grassroots shambling undead conservative horrors. We will be forced to eat SPAM again! Do you want those days to return? Do you?

On a more serious note, I agree with Master Patterico and company about exposing Sullivan’s past on this issue. It’s not a nice trick, but Andy brought it on himself by going after a 17 year old girl and a Downs Syndrome Baby to score political points. I’m not sure where he gets off doing something like that. so yes, keep bringing it up.

Question: Why exactly are these people focus on Sarah Palin’s kids? Is it just that they lack anything of real substance and are desperate for cr*p to throw that they’ll throw anything? Or are they just focusing on trivialities because it somehow amuses them?

This is An Oldie But a Baddie. It’s the ad that inpsired attacks on Sully by Mike Signorile and me a number of years back. Surprised it can still be found cause I was under the impression that he had taken it down some time ago — he being a married gay man and all.

I’m not sure where he gets off doing something like that.
— I’m not sure anyone wants to know where, when, or how Sullivan gets off.

Question: Why exactly are these people focus on Sarah Palin’s kids? Is it just that they lack anything of real substance and are desperate for cr*p to throw that they’ll throw anything? Or are they just focusing on trivialities because it somehow amuses them?
— They focus on the kids because that grabs the attention of the general public and the tabloid press, and focuses it on the negative spin/spew issuing from the Dems. In their minds they do have real substance in the form of her “right-wing Christisan Conservative views;” but like I said, making it personal actually makes your average voter sit up and pay attention. They aren’t playing this for amusement purposes; it’s more like: win at all costs and whoever gets hurt in the process is a casualty of war . . . although the libs, of course, are too wishy-washy to own up to something like that, which is why one of the first things they did was to blame Palin herself for what they (the libs) were going to do to her family in the public arena.

I guess I understand the whole idea of grabbing the attention but the whole thing just…urrgh. If they have an issue with her “Right Wing Christian Conservative views”, then they should raise those instead of blathering on about children. I suppose you’re right about them just trying to fight this war and not caring who they hurt but it strikes me as a very irresponsible way to engage in politics. It ain’t new, but it’s not any less irresponsible.

Sarah Palin’s kids are a subject wothy of comment given the “moral” poses taken by the Fundie right she represents. But they’re of little consequence compared to her actual record as mayor and governor. She has a lot to answer for there of genuine concern to the people of this country.

And by the people of this country I’m talking about more than White Heterosexul Republican Protestants.

Agreed! They have people saying that she’s “not a real woman” now, because to their narrow-minded mentality a liberated/feminist woman HAS to be liberal in her politics. For all their concern her name might as well be Phyllis Schlafly or Anita Bryant. I think the attention by Dem/Obama supporters is due to a combination of factors, chief of which is their resentment that Obama couldn’t suck it up and pick Hillary; luckily for Obama, they are able to transfer their hurt feelings onto Palin because she is no moderate. They’re also scared because of the positive reaction she’s received in spite of all the looming “controversies”; many of them feel, and rightly so, that McCain won the election the day he announced her as his running mate — so they’re venting, casting aspersions against the person who beat them. They also feel that she is much more vulnerable to attack than McCain; that’s why Barack won’t shut up about her in public, even though behind the scenes the Dems who know better are telling him to stop pointing the negative spotlight away from the top of the ticket.

I didn’t know until I visited here that Sullivan is “poz”. I have been wondering if he was actally going insane. The blogosphere is full of references to his past glories followed by distress at his current paranoid ramblings. In that light the following makes a great deal of sense:

“CONCLUSIONS: One of the first symptoms of AIDS is dementia…”

This is from a paper published by the U.S. National Institutes of health here;

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.